The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus

This was in those early years, when Micheal Meyers of the Halloween franchise, and Jason Voorhies of the Friday the 13th franchise were
reinforcing the notion that sex leads to horrible death, the media was doing the same in regards to HIV, and so I would meet a nice girl and before we
had unprotected sex, we would both go get tested, as if we were engaged in some clinical ritual. Far from being romantic, even if we would go to the
doctor together, we would sit and listen to the lectures and how important it was to be honest about our sexual history because of that six degrees of
separation factor.

Of course, my sexual history was active enough, that after my honesty about it and the doctors alarming lectures of how this put my partners at risk,
a good girl couldn't but help look at me like I was someone to be regarded as suspicious. Inquisitions about sexual history, and arguments were the
new normal in those days. I embraced monogamy and when a relationship would fail, I would not have sex with another woman until we both agreed we
were an exclusive couple. Whenever we went to get tested, neither myself, nor my girlfriends seemed to know anything about this HIV testing process.
We were not young scientists looking for answers, we were religious adherents dutifully obliging our priest class doctors and paying for the privilege
of testing.

The fears at that time were understandable. It didn't take a molecular biologist to understand that testing for HIV did not do anything to prevent
AIDS. It was easy to be suspicious of our mates, wondering if they were being faithful to us and if they weren't would they come home and have
deadly sex with us and give us a disease that would lead to ghastly syndrome.

Meanwhile, Gallo and Montagnier made up, with Montagnier getting the lions share of the patent rights to the HIV test, and again while I was only
peripherally aware of this, I was aware that Montagnier stopped calling Gallo names. I was still bartending, and at some point worked at a bar where
another bartender who was openly gay worked at as well. A few years later he died of lung cancer. No one knew he was HIV positive, until his
obituary pointed out that our friend, this bartender, had not apparently died of lung cancer, but had died of an "AIDS related illness". You want
to talk about responsibility and compassion? While all of us liked this bartender, we couldn't help but feel outraged that he had kept his HIV
status from us. Sure, we, at this point, were well aware of how difficult it was for gay people to get by in a world that feared and disliked them,
and we were also well aware of how it was unfair to gay people that the whole AIDS scare remained largely focused on them, but for Christ sakes! This
guy was HIV positive and serving drinks in a bar.

Bartenders break glass regularly behind a bar. Fingers get cut, blood drips. I don't know if this openly gay bartender ever cut himself behind the
bar, but in our own attempts to keep compassion for this bartender now dead of lung cancer, we also felt it was reckless and irresponsible of him to
keep this HIV positive status a secret, and we felt betrayed. Where was his compassion? Just how responsible was he being? These were the
controversies that arose just after his death, and simmering below all of that controversy was yet another controversy: Why did his obituary ignore
the fact that this bartender had died of lung cancer and instead listed as being an "AIDS related illness"?

At this time, we had a customer who drank in the bar regularly. This guy was not well liked by the clientele because he always insisted everyone call
him Dr. He would never tell anyone his first name and expected only to be called Dr. Smith. (The name has been changed to protect the not so
innocent) One day I watched him being snarky with a few other customers and insisting they call him Dr. and I had had enough of his attitude. At
this time, drinking and driving legislation had come to a point, largely due to organizations such as MAAD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) and SAAD
(Students Against Drunk Drivers) where they were holding bartenders responsible for the actions of people they had served alcohol. So, I asked this
pretentious drunk if he was on call.

The "Dr." told me it was none of my business whether he was on call or not. I corrected him and told him that if was on call and due to the alcohol
I had been serving him, got called into some medical emergency and wound up harming the patient because of his drunkenness that I could be held
accountable. I told him that in this bar, the only "Dr.'s" were the bartender's and no one else got to hold any title of nobility. Dr. Smith
respectfully argued his case, insisting that because he had spent so many years in school, and then so many years in residency that he had earned the
honorific of "Dr."

There were several customers gathered around him as the watched him explain this, knowing full well that I wouldn't tolerate any nonsense. So, I
said to this "Dr."; "I see. Because you know more than the rest of us about medicine, then we should show you the respect you've earned and
simply call you "Dr." He agreed. I said that I would be okay with this if he could explain to us something about "Joe" (the openly gay bartender
now dead of lung cancer name has been changed as well). The "Dr." knew "Joe" just as everyone else at the bar that night did. The "Dr." agreed
to this condition and asked me what I wanted to know.

I reiterated that "Joe" had died of lung cancer, but as we were all shocked to find out, "Joe" had been HIV positive, so his obituary listed his
illness as an "AIDS related illness" and made no mention of lung cancer. I asked the "Dr." why this was. He rolled his eyes and went
"Pffffffttttttt", that's easy". He then began explaining that because "Joe" was HIV positive that his immune system had been compromised and
eventually he developed AIDS which is a syndrome that made "Joe" susceptible to opportunistic diseases. In short, the good "Dr." had informed us
that "Joe" got lung cancer because his immune system was compromised.

I said: "I see. So, are you saying that people who are HIV negative but die of lung cancer had nothing at all wrong with their immune system".
"Well...no....I'm not really an expert on AIDS" The good "Dr." stuttered and stammered. Of course, this was in a bar setting, so his stuttering
and stammering only encouraged much laughter from all the other customers who were paying attention to this exchange between he and I, and finally the
good "Dr." told his name was "John".

As time went on well known celebrities such as Rock Hudson, and
Arthur Ashe had succumbed to what the media told us was AIDS, and a few people who had become
celebrities simply because of their HIV status such as Kimberly Bergalis and
Ryan White had also succumbed to what the media told us was AIDS.

Eventually, I moved to Los Angeles and one night heard Christine Maggiore tell her tale on the Frank Sontag radio show. Christine calmly and without
any bitterness told her tale of being diagnosed with HIV and how shocked she was by this diagnosis. She was not very sexually active, was not gay,
was not an intravenous drug user, not a hemophiliac, not from Haiti or Africa, but somehow she was testing "positive" for HIV. She talked about how
active she became as a public speaker for AIDS organizations such as AIDS Project Los Angeles and
L.A. Shanti Project doing her part to be what Sam likes to call being responsible and
compassionate, educating people about the risks of HIV.

As the interview with Frank Sontag went on I listened carefully because suddenly Christine began telling a story that struck a chord with me. She
told about how a doctor had encouraged her to retest and that when she did this time she tested "negative", then "positive" again, and for a
period of several months going back and forth and in between with "indeterminate" results. This "indertimination" understandably - at least for
the responsible and compassionate - left Christine shocked and confused. Christine went to the very organizations she had dedicated so much of her
life for the five years leading up to this to try and get some answers. What she got was shouted and down and told to shut up. What she got was no
compassion at all from...well, what Sam likes to call the "responsible and compassionate"...and left her feeling all alone, scared and confused.

Christine, however, was a warrior poet and was not about to let these series of unfortunate events bring her down, so she began researching the whole
mess we now call HIV/AIDS. After years of study and research, after contacting people across the world who were actually open to discussing the many
questions that come with this HIV = AIDS paradigm, in 1995 she wrote a brochure that would ultimately lead to her writing the book
What if Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? She wrote this book under the
specter of her HIV diagnosis where she was told she would only have five years to live, and as she researched this conundrum she outlived her medical
prognosis.

What Christine learned through her arduous research helped, as her
memorial puts it, "began to alleviate the shame and terror of her HIV
diagnosis. Her desire was to create something concise and informative and empowering that she could give to others who had received a similar
diagnosis and who were ashamed and terrified and alone."

This was Christine Maggiore's responsibility and compassion. She had gone from being a public speaker for AIDS organizations "informing" them of
the dangers they faced because of HIV to becoming a tiny warrior poet dedicated to helping others who felt terrified and alone. Christine formed an
organization known as Alive and Well:

Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit support, education and health advocacy network founded in 1995 by a group of HIV
positive diagnosed men and women. Our advisory board includes medical doctors, scientists, attorneys, journalists, business professionals, university
professors, health experts and human rights leaders.

Alive & Well is not a philosophy, belief system or authoritarian organization. We do not tell you what to think, how to live, or what to do. Our
mission is to inspire productive dialogue and vital research in order to bring about healthy solutions to the global tragedy of AIDS. We encourage
independent thinking, responsible and respectful behavior, and healthy life choices. We honor your right to make your own informed decisions regarding
HIV and AIDS.

Alive & Well does not promote conspiracy theories or cures or any information not referenced from medical or scientific journals, government
publications, international health agencies, or recognized news sources. We offer only verifiable data that can help you distinguish between fear and
facts.

(Emphasis added)

What did or does Alive and Well do?

Most, if not all impartial scientific findings on AIDS contrast with orthodox views and mainstream opinions. Based on this growing body of
scientific, medical, and epidemiological evidence, Alive & Well provides information that raises questions about the accuracy of HIV tests, the safety
and effectiveness of AIDS drug treatment, and the validity of most common assumptions about HIV and AIDS. Our mission is to open much needed
dialogue on HIV, to advocate for unprejudiced scientific research on AIDS, to assist people in making truly informed decisions about their lives and
health, and to provide legal, medical and peer support for HIV positives seeking immune-enhancing alternatives to toxic AIDS
interventions.

All HIV antibody tests are highly inaccurate. One reason for the tests' tremendous inaccuracy is that a variety of viruses, bacteria and other
antigens can cause the immune system to make antibodies that also react with HIV. When the
antibodies produced in response to these other infections and
antigens react with HIV proteins, a positive result is registered. Many antibodies found in normal,
healthy, HIV-free people can cause a positive reading on HIV antibody tests. Since the antibody production generated by a number of common viral
infections can continue for years after the immune system has defeated a virus -- and even for an entire lifetime -- people never exposed to HIV can
have consistent false positive reactions on HIV tests for years or for their
entire lives.

The accuracy of an antibody test can be established only by verifying that positive results are found in people who actually have the virus. This
standard for determining accuracy was not met in 1984 when the HIV antibody test was first created. Instead, to this day, positive
ELISA's are verified by a second antibody test of unknown accuracy, the HIV
Western Blot. Since the accuracy for HIV antibody tests has never been properly established, it
is not possible to claim that a positive test indicates a current, active HIV infection or even to know what it may indicate. In one study that
investigated positive results confirmed by Western Blot, 80 people with two positive ELISAs that were "verified" by a positive Western Blot tested
negative on their next Western Blot.

"The only way to distinguish between real reactions and cross-reactions is to use HIV isolation. All claims of HIV isolation are based on a set
of phenomena detected in tissue culture, none of which are isolation and none of which are even specific for retroviruses...We don't know how many
positive tests occur in the absence of HIV infection. There is no specificity of the HIV antibody tests for HIV infection."

Bio/Technology Journal, 11:696-707, 1993

"The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts claim are specific
to HIV. The fact is that an antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times, does not prove the presence of viral infection."

Val Turner, MD, Continuum magazine, Vol 3 No 5, 1996

"HIV tests are notoriously unreliable in Africa. A 1994 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases concluded that HIV tests were
useless in central Africa, where the microbes responsible for tuberculosis, malaria and leprosy were so prevalent that they registered over 70% false
positive."

Sacramento Bee, October 30, 1994

"With public health officials and politicians thrashing out who should be tested for HIV, the accuracy of the test itself has been nearly
ignored. A study last month by Congress' Office of Technology Assessment found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups at very low
risk -- people who don't use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bisexual men -- 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating
infection where none exists."

US News & World Report, November 23, 1987

"People who receive gamma globulin shots for chicken pox, measles and hepatitis could test positive for HIV even if they've never been infected.
The Food and Drug Administration says that a positive test could be caused by antibodies found in most of America's supply of gamma globulin. Gamma
globulin is made from blood collected from thousands of donors and is routinely given to millions of people each year as temporary protection against
many infectious diseases. Dr. Thomas Zuck of the FDA's Blood and Blood Products Division says the government didn't release the information because
'we thought it would do more harm than good.'"

USA Today, October 2, 1987

"Two weeks ago, a 3-year-old child in Winston Salem, North Carolina, was struck by a car and rushed to a nearby hospital. Because the child's
skull had been broken and there was a blood spill, the hospital performed an HIV test. As the traumatized mother was sitting at her child's bedside,
a doctor came in and told her the child was HIV-positive. Both parents are negative. The doctor told the mother that she needed to launch an
investigation into her entire family and circle of friends because this child had been sexually abused. There was no other way, the doctor said, that
the child could be positive. A few days later, the mother demanded a second test. It came back negative. The hospital held a press conference where a
remarkable admission was made. In her effort to clear the hospital of any wrongdoing, a hospital spokesperson announced that 'these HIV tests are not
reliable; a lot of factors can skew the tests, like fever or pregnancy. Everybody knows that.'"

Celia Farber, Impression Magazine, June 21, 1999

"A Vancouver woman is suing St. Paul's Hospital and several doctors because she was diagnosed as carrying the AIDS virus, when in fact she
wasn't. In a BC Supreme Court writ, Lisa Lebed claims when she was admitted to the hospital in late 1995 to give birth to a daughter, a blood sample
was taken without her consent. It revealed she was HIV positive, so she gave up the baby girl for adoption and decided to have a tubal ligation. A
year and a half later, while undergoing AIDS treatment, she found out she was not HIV positive. The explanation she was given was a lab error. She
says because of the negligence of the hospital, she's now sterile and has lost a daughter."

Woman Sues St. Paul's, CKNW Radio 98, June 10, 1999

Read the last two external quotes, Sam and come back and share your responsibility and compassion for these women and the ordeals they went through
because of...well, because of "responsibility and compassion".

There is reason for concern about the false positive rate in testing for antibody to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Even when the
specificity of a test is high, some persons who are truly without disease will nevertheless test positive. In populations in which the prevalence of
disease is low, these false positive results represent a substantial proportion of all positive results, lowering the probability that a positive test
result indicates true disease.1 , 2 The potential consequences of incorrectly informing a person that he or she is infected with HIV are severe:
certainly anguish, fear, and depression; perhaps lost jobs, denied . . .

Of course, this study was done in 1988 so the camp that relies on really sad stories as science also likes to dismiss any study done before the New
Millennium...unless, of course, that study supports their paradigm. In spite of this study, in spite of all the research Maggiore did regarding HIV
tests, here is what Avert has to say about it:

HIV antibody tests are the most appropriate test for routine diagnosis of HIV among adults. Antibody tests are inexpensive and very accurate. The
ELISA antibody test (enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent) also known as EIA (enzyme immunoassay) was the first HIV test to be widely used.

Now there's some responsibility and compassion for you!

Continuing now with the tragic tale of the life and times of Christine Maggiore:

At some point during her new crusade Christine met Robin Scovil who would later become her husband and father of their two children, the eldest,
Charlie, and then later Eliza Jane. Christine, in spite of furious protestations from the AIDS community, did not take any medication being offered
to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV, Charlie, however, has never tested positive for HIV, and during Eliza Jane's short life she was never
tested.

Christine Maggiore chose not to take antiretroviral drugs or other measures which reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV during
her pregnancies. Maggiore also breast-fed her children, despite evidence that breast-feeding can also transmit HIV from mother to child. Her youngest
daughter, Eliza Jane, was never tested for HIV, nor did she or her older brother Charlie receive any of the recommended childhood vaccines. Maggiore
later reported Charlie to have tested HIV-negative three times, and asserted that both were in good health.

In April 2005, Eliza Jane became ill with a runny nose. She was seen by two physicians, one of whom reportedly knew of Maggiore's HIV status. Eliza
Jane was not tested for HIV, and was diagnosed with pneumonia. When Eliza Jane failed to improve, Maggiore took her to see Philip Incao, a holistic
practitioner and board member of Maggiore's AIDS-denialist organization Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, who claimed Eliza Jane appeared to be only
mildly ill, and prescribed her amoxicillin for a presumed ear infection. On May 16, 2005, Eliza Jane collapsed and stopped breathing. She was rushed
to Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys, California, where, after failed attempts to revive her, she was pronounced dead.

Christine Maggiore was in prime form, engaging and articulate, when she explained to a Phoenix radio host in late March why she didn't believe
HIV caused AIDS.

The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her
children for the virus.

"Our children have excellent records of health," Maggiore said on the Air America program when asked about 7-year-old Charlie and 3-year-old Eliza
Jane Scovill. "They've never had respiratory problems, flus, intractable colds, ear infections, nothing. So, our choices, however radical they may
seem, are extremely well-founded."

Eliza Jane Scovill died suddenly and unexpectedly at the age of three years and five months on the evening of May 15, 2005. Her heart stopped
while she was at home with her parents and older brother. She was rushed to a hospital by ambulance where she was revived. For the next five hours,
EMTs tried to figure out what had happened and save her life. Two chest x-rays and a battery of tests provided no answers and EJ died again on the
morning of May 16. Because no cause of death was apparent, EJ was referred to the LA County Coroner’s office for an autopsy. On May 18, an autopsy
revealed no apparent cause of death, and tests run over the next week revealed nothing. Four months later the LA Country Coroner’s office released a
report (first to the LA Times and then to the parents) announcing that Eliza Jane had died of the AIDS-defining illness PCP (Pneumocystis carinii
pneumonia).

Two months later, a report by pathologist and toxicologist Mohammed Al-Bayati (retained by the parents) found no evidence for pneumonia and concluded
that Eliza Jane had died from an allergic reaction to amoxicillin, a synthetic penicillin, known to be a major cause of severe allergic reactions. EJ
had begun treatment with amoxicillin for an ear infection the day before she died and had never taken antibiotics previously. Al-Bayati also found no
convincing evidence that Eliza Jane was immune compromised.

Who is Mohammad Al-Bayati? That link takes you to the Encyclopedia of
American Loons, known for their...well, what Sam likes to call "responsibility and compassion". Continuing with the aftermath of the
death of Eliza Jane:

The LAPD investigated the case for 12 months, presumably considering the autopsy’s implication that EJ’s mother, Christine Maggiore, had
risked her daughter’s life by not taking highly toxic AIDS drugs during pregnancy, having natural childbirth, and breastfeeding her daughter.
Maggiore tested HIV positive in 1992 and has lived in health without medical treatments. Following an LA Times story on the case, attempts were made
to remove EJ’s older brother from his parents but this action failed after he repeatedly tested HIV negative along with his father who remains HIV
negative despite being with Christine since 1996.

An investigation into the actions of Eliza Jane’s three pedicatricians resulted in charges of gross negligence against one, Dr. Paul Fleiss, by the
California Medical Board. However, after 12 months, the charges were dropped.

All attempts to have Charlie taken away from his mother and father failed. All attempts to destroy the doctors lives who treated Christine
Maggoire's children ended up quietly going away.

James K. Ribe, one of two LA County Coroner employees who signed the autopsy report, has a long and well documented history of providing
questionable evidence and analysis, yet medical and legal authorities have so far been unwilling to seriously investigate his competence and, if shown
to be lacking, to remove him from his position where his willingness to draw conclusions contradicted by medical evidence has destroyed the lives of
many innocent parents.

Medical autopsies have another problem: when it comes to the interpretation of the findings, autopsy pathologists are just as fallible as other
physicians. Often more so, because they have no clinical training or experience. Under the rules of the American Board of Pathology, the
pathologist’s training requires no clinical training or experience whatever. As a result, the pathologist who performs your autopsy and writes the
report is a laboratorian who has never walked the ward at night, never pulled a beeper, never run a code, and never held responsibility while a
patient lived or did not live.

Your readers should be aware of these two weaknesses of the medical autopsy. They should be aware that as a result of these two weaknesses — the
weakness of demonstration and the weakness of interpretation — the medical autopsy is at best a data point in the clinical history. Like a
radiologic scan, it is an observation to be considered.

The death of Christine Maggiore's little girl, and the subsequent investigations into her family's life and her family doctors practice had to have
been incredibly hard on this stoic woman who had simply chosen to live her life according to the dictates of her own conscience. She never stopped
fighting what she believed to be the good fight.

I had heard her on several talk radio programs sharing the information she had found. I heard her once on the Karel and Andrew Show, a show I rarely
paid attention to, and was a shock radio program with the first openly gay couple. I was channel surfing one day and instantly recognized her voice.
I stayed with the program as Karel and Andrew, particularly Andrew Howard yelled and
screamed at Christine for being...well, like Sam likes to say about my O.P., reckless and irresponsible and they accused her of being dangerous. I
listened as Christine remained jovial, laughing and suggesting Andrew take a chill pill. I couldn't help but be impressed with her demeanor and her
erudition.

I knew little of Andrew and Karel that day, but learned more about them when the L.A. Times reported the sudden death of Andrew Howard. Apparently,
Andrew Howard was HIV positive:

In the late 1980s I would marry/partner with an HIV positive man, who over time developed full-blown AIDS (his t-cells dropped below 200, the
criteria then) and only had AZT to take. I watched that drug takes its toll on so many that most refused to take it at some point.

Then 3TC came around, and there were two drugs, two types. Then Combivir and then and then and then. My husband, Andrew Howard, would go on to grace
the cover of the Wall Street Journal and we both were in Der Spiegel and featured on CNN and every major news network. Why? Because our friends were
still dying. Because Andrew thought that he was going to follow the course of our good friend Lorenzo Braxton whom we had just buried. Because I was
desperate and heard of a drug study at Stanford for a new type of drugs called Protease Inhibitors. I called the University administrator in charge of
the program every day until they agreed to see his medical records.

While Andrew Howard was declaring Christine Maggiore dangerous because she was not only refusing to take the HIV drugs prescribed, she was very vocal
about it, he was taking these drugs.

In 2001 Andrew died unexpectedly in front of me. A heart attack. A 34-year-old man dead of a heart attack? Andrew would be one of the canaries in
the cage. I sued his primary care physician and the hospital, and my case was allowed to go through after I changed California State Law to do so
making AB25 and AB 205 retroactive and allowing any same-sex partners with a case subjudice to proceed. Making history even in death.

But my knowledge of HIV, which was extensive at his death, after living with him and it for so long, grew even more in the deposition process, talking
with the coroner, with HIV experts across the state. Seems protease inhibitors raise the cholesterol levels in those that take them and doctors must
add in a statin drugs. We know that now, because of people like my late husband.

Christine Maggiore outlived not only Andrew Howard but many, many people who were diagnosed with HIV at the time she was or later. When I read about
Andrew's death I remember thinking that this Christine Maggiore must be onto something. What if she was right? What if this Peter Deusberg she kept
yammering on about was right? What if everything I had ever heard about AIDS was wrong?

Then, several years after this radio interview with Andrew and Karel, after so many HIV positive people taking their prescribed medicines had died,
after little baby Eliza Jane had died suddenly, after the aftermath of that tragic death, on December 27, 2008 Christine Maggiore died in quietly and
suddenly in her sleep. It rattled me to the bone. What if Christine was wrong? What if she was dangerous? What if....

I have remained steadfastly ambivalent about what causes AIDS and what HIV's connection to AIDS actually is, and since the death of Christine
Maggiore I have been more cautious and much more diligent in my efforts to know the truth on this matter. I have put my own time and efforts into
researching this matter. I have read many papers by Deusberg, read many papers by the Perth Group, read both the standard HIV/AIDS websites stance on
the so called "AIDS denialists" and have read the websites of those who question the HIV paradigm and still I remain steadfastly ambivalent.

I just don't know what the truth is regarding HIV and AIDS. Here is what I do know. I know that regardless of whether Christine Maggiore was right
or wrong about HIV, she lived a full life and did so passionately and according to the dictates of her own conscience. I know she has been ruthlessly
and mercilessly attacked both in life, and now after her death. Indeed, on February 27, 2012 AIDSTruth, that
bastion of "responsible and compassionate" scientists uploaded a Youtube video of Frank Sontag interviewing Christine Maggiore:

Why did AIDSTruth upload this video? Surely Sam would think this reckless and irresponsible to give spotlight to Christine Maggiore and her views,
no? No! Of course not! AIDSTruth didn't upload that interview on Youtube to give Maggiore's views an equal platform. AIDSTruth has only just
uploaded that video this year to celebrate the victory of Christine Maggiore's death. Giddily and wickedly dancing on Christine Maggiore's grave
like a bunch of drunken sods, AIDSTruth has uploaded that interview to make the point that she is now dead.

It matters not to this bastion of "responsible and compassionate" scientists that Christine Maggiore outlived thousands of her contemporaries. It
matters not to AIDSTruth that Andrew Howard dropped dead of a heart attack because of the HIV drugs he was taking. It matters not that AZT is a
highly toxic poison that is causing the liver disease that has become the primary source of death for people with HIV today. Those who've died while
taking the drugs were "responsible" and for this they deserve our compassion, but Christine Maggiore? AIDSTruth has no compassion for this woman,
and seek to profit over her death.

The interview between Sontag and Maggiore is there for your listening, if you care to know this stoic woman a little better.

In terms of sad stories as a replacement for science? Sam Keppler joined this site specifically to attack this thread, and as his argument, he told
us all a really sad story. For years the moderators in this site have continually reminded us that we should attack the arguments and not the member.
Of course, Sam's argument was Sam. Sam had a really sad story to tell, and because of this sad story he wants us all to just take his word for it
that he has done the research. Sam expects us to accept that we shouldn't expect him to provide any knowledge from this research he's done,
because...well, because Sam told us all a really sad story.

I now have spent several posts and a good portion of this day also telling you a really sad story. I've told you the sad story of Christine Maggiore
who had the audacity to share the research she found.

I will always remember Christine Maggiore, and I will always admire her tenacity and strong will. I mourn her loss, and I remain unknowing about much
regarding this HIV = AIDS controversy, but I am trying to learn, not through really sad stories, but through scientific research. I have done my best
to offer up that research. I have been criticized by several members for providing that research, accused of "cherry picking", but here's the
deal; there is what is known as the Hegelian Dialectic, which offers up a method of critical thought. That method is Thesis, Antithesis, and
Resolution.

I have provided a Thesis. Those who criticize me refuse to offer up one iota of scientific research as an Antithesis, instead expecting me to do so.
If I have to I will. However, first I will do my best job in providing a strong Thesis. You would think with all the members in this site I
wouldn't have to also provide a strong Antithesis, but if that responsibility falls upon me, then so be it, but if I am the one who has to do that
then I will dictate the terms by which I do that, and I certainly will not do so until I am satisfied I have provided a strong Thesis.

This is my challenge to ATS: If you disagree with my Thesis then I expect you to provide a strong Antithesis, which includes actual scientific
research. If this is done, then together we can, through this thread, find some sort of Resolution.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Considering just the length of the thread at this point, exactly what thesis have you proven, and how have you proven it?

I'd just like to make sure again what the argument is about in a nutshell.

Are you being purposely obtuse? Do you not understand what Thesis, Antithesis, and Resolution mean? This isn't about proving a goddamned thing,
other than what has been clearly been proven, which is there are plenty of people who believe all they have to do is shout down someone questioning
the HIV paradigm, and science be damned! Outside of that, I have offered a Thesis, and while I actually thought you might be one to offer up a
reasonable Antithesis to that Thesis, instead here you are being tragically obtuse.

From Pesticides,to "drugs" made from big Pharma,the foods we eat,the water we drink,the expansion of Population,all have to factor into what
diseases,man can live with,and what will kill those who's immune systems might be susceptible. A third of the Mayan population was killed by disease,
that a few Spanish conquistador's,gave them. Ironic that we travel to places,and have to get vaccinated,for local diseases,that the local
population,don't get vaccinated for. Where HIV starts,and AIDS stops,is something scientists don't comprehend,and frankly,In my belief,have no
answer for. The quick judgment of those who have not witnessed this,close up and personal,leave me to believe also,that they are ignorant in believing
scientists,or big Pharmas answer,to the disease. Charlatans have been around for ages,selling their tonics,giving their advice. Just another day and
age of them,now with fancy titles......

I'm not saying any view is wrong as long as all views are represented (which they have been on this thread), I'd just like to make sure that apples
are discussed with apples and not with pears.
That is also because one doesn't want to reply under a mistaken impression that somebody is a blanket denialist (virtually everything causes AIDS
except for HIV), when they have certain issues only.
A thesis should not take long to explain.

In your reply to me on p.4 for example you say that "HIV denialist" or "HIV does not cause AIDS denialists" is better or less propagandistic than
"AIDS denialist" (although AIDSTruth does define the latter as such in their definition):

Am I really being so unreasonable in my expectation that AIDSTruth be truthful about these so called "denialists" and at the very least call them
HIV denialists. Why is it, do you think, these highly biased "research scientists" are using the phrase - ad nauseum - "AIDS denialists" instead of
HIV causes AIDS denialists?

I don't think you're unreasonable for wanting a clearer discourse and terminology.
Mainstream science needs to step up the quality of its sites, and needs to regard a counter discourse as helpful and engaging.
However "HIV denialism" and "HIV does not cause AIDS denialism" are not necessarily the same theories.
Duesberg (who doesn't deny HIV exists) would not agree with Lanka, for example. www.righto.com...
Perhaps they should all get different labels, because currently the label actually implies that there is a united front of people against mainstream
AIDS science, when really there's diverse theories and questions.

Oh come on, halfholdman! Who here has genuinely offered up scientific research to refute Duesbergs and others claims? I don't mean websites that
offer up "135 clickable links", I mean who here has actually bothered to read those links and come into this thread and by citing the papers
supposedly refuting Deusberg et al, explain how it is they are wrong? You? I don't think so.

Apples and pears indeed! Put the fruit cocktail away and get to work, halfholdman. Go read these scientific papers for yourself and discuss them
with erudition and reason, and stop pretending that the a sound Antithesis has been offered up for a Thesis I am not even done with yet. Please.

If you don't want to do that work, you certainly don't have to, but snide remarks pretending like you really don't understand what the point of
this thread is are not helping your cause.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Considering just the length of the thread at this point, exactly what thesis have you proven, and how have you proven it?

I'd just like to make sure again what the argument is about in a nutshell.

Hmm -- given that JPZ's stance is fairly clear; in that the OP clearly questions why it is so bad to even mention that HIV could possible not be the
cause of AIDS (at least in the sole sense) and that if one does, you must be in denial about AIDS overall is fairly clear.

What more do you need to know? Question his research, challenge it and push the OP to defend it; otherwise you are just perpetuating the "conspiracy"
that HIV=AIDS is and anyone who questions it shall be be stricken by the hand of quasi-science!

----------------

As for the OP, it brings good questions to the table -- questions in which would require many nights of diligent research and knowledge to begin to
unravel what you propose.

Some main points that come to mind:

Why the sudden swing from recognizing a prominent scientist to basically hanging them out to dry. Especially after they contend the conclusions being
made?

Why such a push back to even question and theorize about the whole paradigm? This is evident in this thread and I highly doubt there are molecular
biologist perusing this -- at least not in the capacity of a Journal.

Interesting indeed.....keep an open mind. I think it was Sherlock Holmes that once stated not to conclude until all the evidence is examined. Some
may not agree with such an approach, but what harm could it be? To actually see all the evidence; both for and against any questions; before one
makes a conclusion.

For the most part, many of us have the conclusion that HIV=AIDS because that is what we were told and not because we examined and studied how that
came about. Thanks JPZ for bringing to light another part of the story.

What snide remarks did I make?
What have you proven and made clear on scientific papers, except that the AIDS dissidents/denialists and mainstream science don't like each other,
almost like opposing religions?
Is that the thesis?
I see nothing to debunk that HIV cause AIDS, and you even claim you don't argue this.
But at other times it at least seems like you do.
So I just want to make sure.
Is that so wrong?

I didn't know it was rude to ask for a thesis from somebody who continually claims to have one.
But that's OK, never mind.

I appreciate the questioning, but I still don't see the central thesis.

We have a lot of personal opinion on the final page, which is fine, but there's also little new here.
False negatives and positive tests are known, however those who claim them are sometimes disingenuous at a closer look, as is indeed claimed with the
apparently "contradictory" test results of Christine Maggoire in the House of Numbers flick: www.houseofnumbers.org...

But who's to say what is propaganda, and who hangs out whom to dry?
The invective and vitriol of the denialists isn't exactly without insults and propaganda.
In SA the denialist Anthony Brink (often credited with converting President Mbeki to AIDS denialism, and his book "Debating AZT") tried to accuse the
anti-apartheid and treatment activist Zackie Achmat of genocide, in language that baffles belief:

In view of the scale and gravity of Achmat’s crime and his direct personal criminal culpability for ‘the deaths of thousands of people’, to
quote his own words, it is respectfully submitted that the International Criminal Court ought to impose on him the highest sentence provided by
Article 77.1(b) of the Rome Statute, namely to permanent confinement in a small white steel and concrete cage, bright fluorescent light on all the
time to keep an eye on him, his warders putting him out only to work every day in the prison garden to cultivate nutrient-rich vegetables, including
when it’s raining, in order for him to repay his debt to society, with the ARVs he claims to take administered daily under close medical watch at
the full prescribed dose, morning, noon and night, without interruption, to prevent him faking that he’s being treatment compliant, pushed if
necessary down his forced-open gullet with a finger, or, if he bites, kicks and screams too much, dripped into his arm after he’s been restrained on
a gurney with cable ties around his ankles, wrists and neck, until he gives up the ghost on them, so as to eradicate this foulest, most loathsome,
unscrupulous and malevolent blight on the human race, who has plagued and poisoned the people of South Africa, mostly black, mostly poor, for nearly a
decade now, since the day he and his TAC first hit the scene.

www.whale.to...
His other shenanigans were even stranger.
That's our experience of the noble "Church of AIDS denialism".

So how can one say these people were dismissed simply because they had minority sentiments?
Some were downright delusional, dishonest and insulting.
If a majority of people think they are right and some people could have lived longer with their fulfilled lives if they didn't come under the sway of
certain theorists, is that propaganda?

So what usually happens is the denialists are quoted as saying the tests don't work, and then somebody else will quote a site that says they do work
when used properly, with a margin of error.
Surely I can't quote all the people who got consistent test results, including myself.
But if the tests don't work one can't make any conclusive statement on HIV in any case.
A nice catch 22.

In any case, it's come to the usual points again in such threads where there's no progress and quote vs. quote in the broadest terms.
I didn't propose anything, and just asked for a thesis, and not for an obvious statement that there are hundreds of click-able quotes.
Why should anyone debunk Duesberg's work from the "Church of HIV"?
The people that disagree with the denialists seem to just apostate.
In the "Church of Denialism" Lanka disputes Duesberg, so they can sort that out first, because they are fundamentally different theses.

All I wanted was a recap of the main points apart from stating that there's a disagreement between 3000 or so organized denialists and the entire
medical system on the planet.

Mate you lost me. Your quoted posts are 20+ years old - world has moved on since. Must admit, I have no idea what it is that you're arguing now and
what it is I'm supposed to be denying (as accused above) or proving. I do sense anger in your posts, so I'll stop posting as this is clearly something
you feel angry about. To sum it up:

I don't know what causes AIDS
The 'mainstream' scientists don't conclusively know what causes it
The 'alternative' scientists don't conclusively know what causes it
I find it far fetched that everyone is in on a conspiracy to shut down everyone that is not a mainstream scientists

To draw an analogy:

On one end of the spectum, Galileo Galilei had trouble prooving his theories. Over time his theories prevailed because they were right.

On the other end of the spectrum, Willian A. J. Bailey also had trouble proving his theories. Over time his theories didn't prevail because they were
wrong.

I'm sure if Duisberg or any of the 'non-mainstream' scientists are right, their theories will be proven over time. In meantime, you'll just have to
suck it up and wait, sport. If that is too challenging, feel free to inject some HIV.

Lived a full life eh? She died 14 years after being diagnosed with HIV, too bad her daughter wasn't so lucky. They both died prematurely and
neither one of them lived a full life.

It's obvious you're willing to turn a blind eye to see or not see whatever you like.

Christine Maggiore was 52 years old when she died. Andrew Howard was 34 years old and taking HIV drugs when he died. Christine Maggiore outlived
many contemporaries who were diagnosed as HIV positive and taking the prescribed "cocktails" with AZT. Yes Christine Maggiore lived a full life.

The circumstances of Eliza Jane's death remain unknown. The investigation into the L.A. County Coroner remains ongoing, much of the circumstances
regarding her death remain undisclosed. The propgandaists, such as you could care less about the truth about Eliza Jane and have deemed it just and
moral to use her as an "I told you so" moment, in spite of the fact that L.A. County settled the law suit brought against them over the autopsy of
Eliza Jane, the LAPD after a 12 month investigation into Christine Maggiore and Robin Scovil's lives never brought any charges against them, nor did
they take custody of young Charlie.

If it was Christine Maggiore who killed Eliza Jane then why did L.A. County settle the law suit brought against them over the autopsy? Why didn't
the L.A.P.D. arrest Christine Maggiore? Why did Eliza Jane's physician - who was cleared of all wrong doing -continue to practice after her death?

None of these facts matter at all to you and the propagandaist who come of as a brutal The Longshanks demanding Chrisitne Maggiore's head on a pike.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.